Skip to main content

Pemrick v. Stracher

E.D.N.Y.November 8, 1999No. 1:92-cr-00959Cited 11 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Seybert
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil rights other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationHarassmentRetaliationHostile Work Environment

Outcome

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. SUNY was found not to be plaintiff's employer, but genuine issues of material fact regarding sex and age discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation claims against individual defendants Stracher and Schwarz remained for trial.

What This Ruling Means

**Pemrick v. Stracher: Mixed Victory in University Discrimination Case** This case involved a woman who sued the State University of New York at Brooklyn and individual supervisors, claiming she faced sex and age discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation at work. She argued that her workplace became hostile and that she was treated unfairly because of her gender and age. The court reached a split decision. It ruled that SUNY itself could not be held responsible as her direct employer, essentially removing the university from the lawsuit. However, the court found there was enough evidence to suggest that two individual supervisors, Stracher and Schwarz, may have discriminated against and harassed the employee. These claims against the individual defendants will proceed to trial, where a jury will decide if discrimination actually occurred. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that even when you can't sue your organization directly, you may still have valid claims against individual supervisors or managers who discriminate or harass you. It also demonstrates that courts take these claims seriously when there's sufficient evidence. Workers should know they have legal options against individuals who create hostile work environments, even if the larger institution might escape liability.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.